Maine voters will decide on three referendum questions this November, including one initiative to expand a public campaign-financing system used by most legislative candidates but decried as “welfare for politicians” by opponents.

Question 1 on the Nov. 3 ballot seeks to revive Maine’s public campaign-financing system several years after a U.S. Supreme Court decision undercut a key part of the program in Maine and other states. But in addition to increasing funding for so-called Clean Election candidates, Question 1 would require organizations to disclose the three top donors on political ads and stiffen penalties for campaign finance violations.

Mainers also will be asked whether they support two bond issues: $85 million for transportation projects such as road construction, bridge repairs and railroad infrastructure investments, and $15 million to help pay for the construction of new energy-efficient affordable homes for low-income seniors, as well as the repair or weatherization of the homes of low-income seniors.

But Question 1 is the highest-profile issue in this off-year election.

The campaign is being spearheaded by the organization Mainers for Accountable Elections, which portrays the initiative as a way to reduce the influence of outside groups or well-funded special interests on Maine elections.

“There is a lot of cynicism out there about money in politics,” said Andrew Bossie, a leader in Mainers for Accountable Elections and executive director of Maine Citizens for Clean Elections. “This is an opportunity to once again show that we can fight back and fight for government that is beholden to us and not beholden to special interests and high-priced lobbyists.”

At the center of the debate over Question 1 is a voter-approved law from 1996, the Maine Clean Election Act, which created the state’s public campaign-financing system for those running for the Legislature or governor’s office. Candidates choosing to participate in the system receive public financing in exchange for agreeing to forgo receiving private donations after being certified as Clean Election candidates. Until a few years ago, candidates were able to receive additional Clean Election funding on top of an initial disbursement in order to match the amount raised by their privately funded opponents. But the U.S. Supreme Court struck down such matching fund programs as unconstitutional.

In 2008, 85 percent of Maine legislative candidates participated in the public financing program. That number was down to 51 percent last year in part because of the Supreme Court ruling.

Question 1 would increase the initial disbursement to candidates and increase from $2 million to $3 million the amount earmarked for the Maine Clean Election Fund annually, paid in part by eliminating corporate tax breaks. It also would increase penalties for campaign finance violations and require disclosure of the top three donors to an organization that buys political ads.

But Maine’s public campaign-finance system has come under fire repeatedly in recent years by some lawmakers and Gov. Paul LePage, a Republican who has tried to defund the program and recently called Question 1 “the biggest scam on Maine people.” Last week, a new group calling itself Mainers Against Welfare for Politicians began actively campaigning against Question 1.

Rep. Larry Lockman, R-Amherst, called Question 1 “the biggest example of welfare for politicians in Maine history” and said it could significantly increase the amount of taxpayer dollars spent on campaigns. Instead, Lockman said, the state needs to put more money toward helping nursing homes, reducing the MaineCare waiting list for the elderly or disabled, or taking care of other vulnerable people.

“It borders on scandalous that anybody would propose taking scarce money out of the General Fund to spend on robocalls, negative ads and lawn signs,” said Lockman, who ran his first campaign in 2012 as a Clean Election candidate but now says he regrets the decision. “Every dollar from the General Fund that goes to fund political campaigns is one less dollar for all of these urgent needs,” he said.

Question 1 supporters accuse Lockman and other critics of using the politically charged word “welfare” in order to turn the public against a program that has enjoyed broad bipartisan support in the past. Bossie said he believes “Maine people see beyond that” and support a program that he says allows candidates to run campaigns focused on issues rather than fundraising.

“What Clean Elections allows us to do is have a Legislature that works for us,” Bossie said.

Mainers for Accountable Elections had raised more than $1.2 million in support of Question 1 through Sept. 30, according to the most recent campaign finance reports filed with the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices. Although many donations were for $50 or less from people in Maine and around the country, the organization has received $120,000 from the group Every Voice in Washington, D.C., and $350,000 from the Proteus Action League in Massachusetts, both of which are active on progressive issues.

Mainers Against Welfare for Politicians had not yet filed a campaign finance report with the ethics commission, although Lockman indicated it had raised roughly $30,000 so far.

Here at MaineToday Media we value our readers and are committed to growing our community by encouraging you to add to the discussion.

To ensure conscientious dialogue we have implemented a strict no-bullying policy. To participate, you must follow our Terms of Use. Click here to flag and report a comment that violates our terms of use.

Dan

An increase of $1 million when it should be used to help poor people? Isn’t that just about the amount Lepage had put aside to spend on that company investigating poor people in our state? You know, the company that took $400,000 of it and was accused of plagiarizing the results, so he fired them but we never got a reimbursement.

KennebunkportIndependent

He is about to spend $400k of our money defending himself in a civil lawsuit of his own making.

If LePage is against this bill, my gut reaction is to be for it. But I will think for myself before casting my vote.

TomsInYork

My thoughts exactly.

Dana Dillingham

It wouldn’t be 1 million. It would 3-4-5. Million or more per election year.

tet1953

Undecided about clean elections, but I won’t vote another $1 for any bonds as long as LePage is governor. I can’t trust that he will follow the will of the people.

Richard Tabor

We can vote on another bond issue that Lepage can play political games with!

Thistle

“There is a lot of cynicism out there about money in politics,” said Andrew Bossie, a leader in Mainers for Accountable Elections and executive director of Maine Citizens for Clean Elections.”

More than 80% of the money funding the Yes on 1 crowd comes from out of state. While Kevin Miller has made a brief mention regarding Proteus’ contribution, he has done nothing to report on just who is behind Proteus.

“Although many donations were for $50 or less from people in Maine and around the country,…” Hey, Kevin, how about reporting that the largest individuals donors are not Mainers? Sean Eldridge of NYC gave $200,000. And, best of all, according to the reports submitted, he lists himself as being unemployed. Three others from Colorado and California gave $50,000 each.

Kevin, you might also have noticed, if you had actually reviewed the campaign fund reporting that more than half of the less than $50 individual donations were from individuals came from out of state. In fact almost every state in the country is represented by individual $5 donations. $25 from someone in Idaho? Really? That does not pique your journalistic curiosity?

The sheer hypocrisy of the Yes on 1 crowd is stunning. I do not know if Miller is just too lazy to do his job researching or whether he really is just another left leaning political hack employed by the PPH. Together, though, Bossie and Miller are both trying to mislead Mainers.

DanLeary

Nice analysis – this is such a joke. This is almost all out of state money – these guys are complete hypocrites.

I think you are being very generous with the 80% – but you can;t tell because they wash some of the money through groups that don;t have to disclose their donors…..how nice.

spudman2

If Rep. Larry “Lockstep” Lockman, R-Amherst, is against clean election funds you can bet the farm that all his hush money comes from special interest groups.

There is a long list of wasteful spending and tax cuts by the LePage administration that could have funded clean elections for many many years. Follow the money to the legislators who oppose clean elections funds.

Dana Dillingham

You make no sense. Any donation over $50 must be reported on their campaign finance reports. Do you realize the max any donor can make on a house campaign is $350. Hardly big, corporate, outside influence money.

justanotherfakename

We already have welfare for politicians inherent in the system as it stands. Big money, corporate PAC deceptive money, and question one will force that out into the open, that forced disclosure of sources of campiagn money is what the no on one crowd really is against. Like cockroaches that want to scurry away into the dirt when the light of day is shined on them, that’s the way they want to keep it, dirty, deceptive, hidden from scrutiny. The other bond issues will be approved by we voters, then blocked by fatso, who will lie and rant and rave, and divert, as usual.

Jo Lissa

Why is Bernie taking all this campaign money when he can’t get enough Super Delegates to win? At this point Bernie only has ONE Supper Delegate.

justanotherfakename

Bernie’s average donation is under fifty bucks, no hidden money, no super PAC, and though I hope he wins, win or lose, his influence will reshape the Dem platform for the better, thus the nation for the better.

jbacus

Plus, we get more free stuff paid for by someone else. Bernie’s so cool.

Viola F Hayhurst

A “Yes vote” … does nothing at all to address the real issues of money in American politics. Any politician and his “friends ” can easily surmount the loopholes here. The fact that “$350,000 was actually raised from the Proteus Action League in Massachusetts”, instead of the $ 100,000 that I was quoted in a recent event sponsored by the Vote YES camp, questions as well their very honesty. The State of Maine DOES need its resources to go to its elderly and other citizens on waiting lists than to fund such a loose cannon as this one !

anotheropinion

As long as candidates, and by proxy their PACs, don’t have to be truthful in advertising, then how much money doesn’t matter a bit. I don’t see any point in throwing good money away on “clean” elections.

candiceanne

Unique idea. How about instead of seeking to take critical funds from the state taxpayer coffers to provide welfare for politicians, this group put their money where their mouths are and raise the $3 million needed for the program outside the coffers and give the money to candidates who sign an agreement to the effect of the law they are seeking to impose on taxpayers to provide this welfare to politicians? If these folks believe so strongly in this, why don’t they supply the money and run the program outside of government?